27 november 2009

Hundreds of highly compromising emails and documents have been leaked online from the Climatic Research Unit University of East Anglia. The leak calls into question scientific methods and the results of several public climate research institutes. The CRU is one of the world’s leading research centers on climate change and the top source of temperature data worldwide. It played a key role in the IPCC’s fourth Assessment Report, which is the scientific base of policy negotiations at the Copenhagen Climate Conference next month. The IPCC fourth Assessment Report provides support for policy to mitigate global warming and for a further implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Proposals for a new Copenhagen Climate Treaty including new regulations and the much disputed Global Emissions Trading scheme costing taxpayers trillions of dollars worldwide were based on the IPCC's claimed research results.

Several authors and recipients of the leaked emails have confirmed their veracity. The emails provide ample evidence that climatologists systematically colluded in manipulating data to support the view that climate change is real, and is being caused by mankind. The leaked emails discuss political pressure on scientists, statistical tricks how to hide inconvenient data, how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer reviews, how to censor information going out to the public, how to decline requests for information under the Freedom of Information act, how to keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals, and to boycott journals who did. The climate researchers also repeatedly declined to share their data with fellow scientists. The general picture of the series of emails is one of conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, manipulation of data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, and organized resistance to disclosure.

* Phil Jones says he has use Mann's "Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series"...to hide the decline". Real Climate says "hiding" was an unfortunate turn of phrase. * Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to "contain the putative Medieval Warm Period". * Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers. * Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible.* Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results. Analysis of impact here. Wow! * Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to Freedom of Information request.* Kevin Trenberth says they can't account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can't. * Funkhouser says he's pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn't think it's productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has. * Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.* Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather and has threatened to resign from RMS. * Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.* David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn't be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm. * An anonymous source says that robustness problems with the Hockey Stick are known to anyone who understands his methodology. The source says that there will be a lot of noise over McIntyre's 2003 paper and that knowing Mann's very thin skin he will react strongly, unless he has learned from the past.

The incident has been widely reported in Anglo-Saxon media, but remained silenced in European mainstream media so far.

"Still less is there any acknowledgement that, at the moment, commentators in the United States, in online video reports, are reading increasing chunks of the CRU computer code and bursting into laughter at the incredible manipulations they reveal as, hour by hour, the Climategate scandal unravels. Issues relating to tree rings, not to mention Michael Mann, are central to that deconstruction of what is now being accepted, even by AGW supporters, as the junk science practised at the CRU."

.and this is where it gets CRAZY. Instead of running normally, this time I get:

.. WHAT?! Now it's not precompiling its functions for some reason! What's more - I cannot find the 'glimit' function anywhere!!

20. Secondary Variables - Eeeeeek!! Yes the time has come to attack what even Tim seems to have been unhappy about (reading between the lines).

Moved straight onto the gridding, which, of course, failed:

Loading just the first program opens up another huge can o' worms. The program description reads:

So, to me this identifies it as the program we cannot use any more because the coefficients were lost. As it says in the gridding read_me: Bear in mind that there is no working synthetic method for cloud, because Mark New lost the coefficients file and never found it again (despite searching on tape archives at UEA) and never recreated it.

So.. we don't have the coefficients files (just .eps plots of something). But what are all those monthly files? DON'T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names.

22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project..

As can be seen, there are no unidentifiable headers - hurrah! - but quite a few violations of the boundary between the two extra fields, particularly in the precip database.

well, it compiles OK, and even runs enthusiastically. However there are loads of bugs that I now have to fix. Eeeeek. Timesrunningouttimesrunningout.

Oh - and I'll have to move bloody quick. So more bugs.

Well.. it's kinda working. I found some idiotic bugs, though it is a fearsomely complicated program with lots of indirect pointers (though I do try and resolve them at the first opportunity).

What a bloody mess.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. Look at this:

I have to admit, I still don't understand secondary parameter generation. I've read the papers, and the miniscule amount of 'Read Me' documentation, and it just doesn't make sense.

Now what's happened here? Well the CLIMAT numbering only gives five digits (71 800) and so an extra zero has been added to bring it up to six. Unfortunately, that's the wrong thing to do, because that's the code of CAPE RACE. The six-digit code for NANCY/ESSEY is 071800. Mailed Phil and DL as this could be a big problem - many of the Update stations have no other metadata!

You can't imagine what this has cost me - to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a 'Master' database of dubious provenance (which, er, they all are and always will be).

Not good at all. Or, rather, good that it must be a solvable problem. Except that it's 10 to 5 on a Sunday afternoon and it's me that's got to solve it.

Where to start? Well, retrace your steps, that's how you get out of a minefield.

"Don't bother doing any fact-checking, just use Glenn Beck as your source of "science". That way you can remain ignorant and spread your own stupidity without having to learn how to use Google."

Glenn Beck was not used as a source in this article, but only as a clear proof that the issue had been reporting on in the U.S. media. Next time, please read the article first before adding silly remarks and stupid comments to this thread. Thank you.

Why have the IPCC climate researchers always declined to publish their data? Because they produced fraudulent research which researchers and the eco-industrial complex used to their own profit and which ecologists and politicians like Al Gore exploited for their political agendas and to brainwash a whole generation.

Phil Jones is the man at the centre of the scientific scandal and head of Britain's Centre for Climate Research. His confession in his mail of July 5, 2005 is revealing:

"If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences".